Fact checking as it is currently practiced is counter-productive: unknowable things are called "facts", and "pinocchios" are given even if you're factually correct just because (being charitable myself here) the checker things you're not being charitable enough to their political faction.
I take your point and, while there's some subjectivity there, that may well be an example of fact-checking done in bad faith.
I'm just not sure that it is happening at scale though. But I do agree that, to the extent that it is happening, it is particularly egregious when done under the guise of fact-checking versus, say, your standard tilted article.
Economics and foreign policy are two areas where the fact checkers are most often cloaking ideology as facts. These are two massive and hugely important political areas though, so I think it's pretty widespread.
Comments about political leaders, especially if the leader is aligned with the fact checking group, are also suspect. But leaders are huge often huge bullshit artists, so the fact checkers are also often absolutely right.
